from the do-not-pass-go,-do-not-collect-$200 dept

You might recall that AT&T recently defeated the DOJ's challenge to their $86 billion merger with Time Warner thanks to a comically narrow reading of the markets by U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon. At no point in his 172-page ruling (which approved the deal without a single condition) did Leon show the faintest understanding that AT&T intends to use vertical integration synergistically with the death of net neutrality to dominate smaller competitors and squeeze more money from consumers in an ocean of creative new ways.

Throughout the case the DOJ tried to demonstrate (poorly) that a bigger AT&T has every incentive to behave badly. Admittedly those efforts were pretty feeble since the multi-decade steady lobbyist erosion of antitrust law left them trying to make the case within very narrow confines of legally-acceptable economic theory. The DOJ also shot itself in the foot by refusing to even mention AT&T's attacks on net neutrality, likely because it didn't want to highlight the fact that another arm of the government (the FCC) was actively harming the same consumers the DOJ claimed it was trying to protect.

"AT&T Inc.’s HBO and Cinemax programs were pulled from Dish Network Corp.’s satellite service after the companies failed to reach a new distribution agreement, setting up a real-life “Game of Thrones” between two of the biggest players in pay TV. It is the first time in HBO’s more than four-decade history that programming has been blocked at a distribution partner over a contract dispute, according to AT&T, which acquired the premium cable network as part of its June $85 billion acquisition of Time Warner.

We've noted for years how retransmission and carriage fee disputes in the cable industry have grown increasingly common and are only getting worse. Basically, when it comes time to sign a new deal paying for content, broadcasters generally demand huge rate hikes for the same channels. Cable operators then play hardball, and during negotiations one side or the other (usually broadcasters) pulls their content from the cable lineup. Consumers never see refunds for these feuds, even though these feuds have occasionally left them without access to channels they've already paid for, for months.

For weeks, consumers are bombarded with PR missives, new websites and on-screen warnings all trying to amplify public outrage and drive greater pressure for one side or the other to buckle. After a while, the two sides strike a new confidential deal, and the higher rates are then quickly passed on to consumers. In a letter to lawmakers last year, Dish Network argued that consumers have faced 750 such broadcaster blackouts since 2010, with the retransmission consent fees that broadcasters demand growing a whopping 27,400% between 2005 and 2016.

Of course Time Warner and HBO management traditionally took the high road to avoid these kinds of problems, something that appears to have suddenly and abruptly changed. HBO execs are implying to media outlets that this could all just be a press stunt by Dish to apply pressure on AT&T as it fights the DOJ's recent appeal. Even if that's the case, consumer groups and out-leveraged smaller cable ops have been pushing for years for updated regulations that ban companies from blacking out content while companies bicker over rates.

These demands are never really taken seriously in DC, as it's seen as too heavy handed of an intervention into negotiations between two companies. Ignored is that during these outages, consumers don't see refunds for content they paid for, and this consumer outrage itself is actively encouraged by both sides in a bid to apply pressure on the other end of the deal. While the FCC under Wheeler flirted with the idea of basic FCC rules putting this ridiculous tap dance to bed, there was simply no follow through.

That AT&T was going to use its newfound power to jack up prices for its TV competitors wasn't rocket science, especially if you've watched AT&T's particular flavor of "doing business" anytime over the last two decades.

The irony here is that AT&T even promised the DOJ that it would avoid these kinds of blackouts as a merger condition if the DOJ approved the deal. But the DOJ sued anyway claiming it was helping consumers (though Trump's disdain for CNN and Trump ally Rupert Murdoch's lobbying against the deal are seen as more likely justifications for a consumer-protection phobic Trump administration). But the DOJ's sloppy handling of the case and a terrible ruling by Leon left AT&T more powerful than ever, and consumers and competitors left more vulnerable than ever.

And that's before you even get to AT&T's plans for the post net neutrality world, currently on hold pending the outcome of next February's looming court battle.

Here in the States we have this bizarre tendency to either mindlessly approve megamergers with zero conditions, or conditions that companies are allowed to just tap dance around. The resulting mega-company then behaves badly, and everybody just stands around with a stupid look on their face. Rinse, wash, repeat.

from the ill-communication dept

For years we've talked about how the broadband and cable industry has perfected the use of utterly bogus fees to jack up subscriber bills, a dash of financial creativity it adopted from the banking and airline industries. Countless cable and broadband companies tack on a myriad of completely bogus fees below the line, letting them advertise one rate -- then sock you with a higher rate once your bill actually arrives. These companies will then brag repeatedly about how they haven't raised rates yet this year, when that's almost never actually the case.

Despite this gamesmanship occurring for the better part of two decades, nobody ever seems particularly interested in doing much about it. The government tends to see this as little more than creative financing, and when efforts to rein in this bad behavior (which is really false advertising) do pop up, they tend to go nowhere, given this industry's immense lobbying power.

The latest case in point: US Rep. Anna Eshoo last week quietly introduced a bill that would require broadband and cable TV providers to include all charges in their advertised price. Eshoo explains the proposal as such in her announcement:

"Customers deserve to know exactly what they’re paying for when it comes to monthly cable and Internet service bills. Today, they’re sold a service for one price, only to be blindsided by higher bills at the end of the month from tacked on ‘service’ or ‘administrative’ fees,” Rep. Eshoo said. “These ‘below-the-line’ fees add up to hundreds of millions of dollars each year for cable and Internet service providers at the expense of consumers who have little to no option than to pay up. The TRUE Fees Act is commonsense legislation that brings transparency to consumers and empowers them when it comes to phone, cable and Internet fees."

Of course this bill is never going to pass this current Congressional body, which tends to go out of its way to protect these companies from anything even vaguely resembling accountability. The industry is likely to pull out all the stops, given the billions that are made annually from such bogus fees, and because the bill also prohibits forced arbitration clauses when cable TV or broadband providers make billing mistakes.

Again, this problem is rampant. CenturyLink has been charging its broadband customers an "internet cost recovery fee," which the company's website insists "helps defray costs associated with building and maintaining CenturyLink's High-Speed Internet broadband network" (that's what your full bill is supposed to be for). Comcast and other cable companies have similarly begun charging users a "broadcast TV fee," which simply takes a portion of the costs of programming, and hides it below the line. The names differ but the goal's the same: falsely advertise one rate, then charge consumers a higher price.

And again, efforts to do something about it always get killed thanks to industry lobbying and corruption. The FCC tried to at least mandate transparency as part of its now-dead 2015 net neutrality rules, which current FCC boss Ajit Pai dismantled for, you know, freedom or whatever. Of course you wouldn't need legislation like this if there were more competition in the telecom sector letting consumers vote with their wallets, but given Pai and other industry BFFs don't want to fix that specific problem either, being quietly, covertly ripped off will remain the law of the land for the foreseeable future.

from the more-of-the-same dept

Like many companies, Apple has been trying to disrupt the traditional television sector for years. But like countless companies before it, Apple has repeatedly run face-first into a cable and broadcast industry that's aggressively resistant to actual change. As a result, Apple's efforts to launch a TV service have been comically delayed for years as cable and broadcast companies (worried that what Apple did to the music industry would also happen to the TV sector) tightly restricted how their content could be used if the approach varies too far from accepted industry norms.

So despite Steve Jobs insisting that Apple had "cracked the code" on a next-gen TV set as early as 2011 -- and efforts to strike licensing deals that have been ongoing since at least 2012 -- nothing much has really come from Apple's promised revolution on the television front.

In the years since, numerous streaming providers (Dish's Sling TV, AT&T's DirecTV Now, Sony's Playstation Vue) have jumped into the sector, and Apple is definitely a late arrival. As such, the looming TV service Apple appears poised to launch seems to be very much a derivative offering that isn't likely to disrupt the sector all that much. A report in the Wall Street Journal (paywall, see Gizmodo's alt. take) notes that Apple has set aside $1 billion for original programming, but Tim Cook's fears that the service could tarnish Apple's pure brand image appear to be causing some notable problems.

The report noted how at least one project fled to Amazon after Apple tried to tightly restrict the show's political commentary. And the kind of comically inconsistent restrictions that tend to plague Apple's app store appear to have made their way to the company's looming TV service, including a ban on, of all things, crosses:

"Apple signed a deal for a series made by M. Night Shyamalan about a couple who lose a young child.

Before saying yes to that psychological thriller, Apple executives had a request: Please eliminate the crucifixes in the couple’s house, said people working on the project. They said executives made clear they didn’t want shows that venture into religious subjects or politics. Mr. Shyamalan wasn’t available for comment.

Of course that's the exact opposite tack taken by streaming providers like Netflix or Amazon, which have increasingly turned to original, more edgy fare to help set themselves apart from the traditional networks. As a long list of recent awards make pretty clear, that approach is certainly working out ok. Given Apple's more cautious approach, some employees have taken to making fun of the looming service:

"One agent said some members of Apple’s team in Los Angeles began calling themselves “expensive NBC."

Of course this being Apple, it's entirely possible that nobody cares that Apple's original content lineup lacks any rough edges, and fans are likely to line up and buy the product anyway. It's also certainly possible to create a high-quality platform with largely G-rated fare. That said, this sounds nothing like the TV revolution Apple has promised for the better part of the last decade, and too much interference with the creative process isn't likely to help keep talent around as Apple's never-ending quest to upend the TV apple cart stumbles forward.

from the this-will-surely-end-well dept

We've repeatedly tried to make it clear that while everybody tends to focus on the death of net neutrality itself, the Pai FCC's "Restoring Internet Freedom" order killing net neutrality had a far broader impact than just killing net neutrality rules. As part of the repeal, Comcast, Verizon and AT&T also convinced FCC boss Ajit Pai to effectively neuter FCC authority over ISPs entirely, making it harder for the agency to hold giant ISPs accountable on a wide variety of issues ranging from privacy to transparency (the recent fire fighter kerfuffle being a prime example).

The order also attempts to ban individual states from holding giant ISPs accountable as well, though early ISP efforts to take advantage of this legal language haven't gone very well. In an effort to double down on weakening state oversight of natural telecom monopolies, Comcast lobbyists at the NCTA (the cable industry's biggest lobbying and policy organization) have also started petitioning the FTC, urging it to similarly "pre-empt" (read: ban or ignore) state-level efforts to protect consumers:

"The FTC should ensure that the Internet is subject to uniform, consistent federal regulations, including by issuing guidance explicitly setting forth that inconsistent state and local requirements are preempted," the NCTA wrote.

The FCC is already trying to preempt state net neutrality laws at the urging of industry groups, and courts might ultimately have to decide whether federal agencies can preempt such rules.

"The FTC should endorse and reinforce the FCC's ruling by issuing guidance to state attorneys general and consumer protection authorities reaffirming that they are bound by FCC and FTC precedent in this arena," NCTA argued."

The shorter version: the FCC's Restoring Internet Freedom order effectively cripples the FCC's ability to protect consumers, then shovels any remaining enforcement authority over to the FTC, which is ill-equipped to actually police the telecom market. Predicting that states would then try to jump in and fill the oversight accountability vacuum (which is precisely what started happening on both net neutrality and privacy), ISPs have also been urging both the FCC and the FTC to ban states from doing so.

This is all being done under the pretense that blind deregulation of the telecom sector magically results in greater industry investment and broader deployment. But as we've explained countless times, that's not how the U.S. telecom sector works. With neither competition nor reasonable government oversight to constrain it, natural monopolies like Comcast are simply free to double down on all their worst behaviors. To ignore this historical fact, one is required to pretend that the broadband industry is actually competitive, something Comcast again leans on in its filing with the FTC:

"ISPs claim they face so much competition that market forces will prevent bad behavior. Cable TV faces competition from online video services like Netflix, YouTube, and Amazon, NCTA noted. But notably, the NCTA filing includes a graphic listing "competitors" that doesn't include any broadband providers."

None of this logic is new. It was the same argument used by former FCC head Mike Powell (now the top lobbyist of the cable industry), who happily deregulated the broadband sector in the early aughts promising a cornucopia of investment and competition (consumers instead got a bigger Comcast monopoly, skyrocketing prices, usage caps, and virtually no competition at faster speeds). Oddly, giving giant telecom monopolies the precise regulatory landscape they want (no oversight, no concern about monopoly power) doesn't end well for consumers, innovation, or competition.

That this is still debated speaks to how lost in the woods on these issues we've become. And like Charlie Brown and his football, we never seem to learn, so nothing changes. And our reward for this collective gullibility is expensive broadband, comically-terrible customer service, and a bigger, meaner Comcast.

from the inevitability dept

As we just got done noting, roughly 5.4 million Americans are expected to cut the TV cord this year, thanks largely to the rise in cheaper, more flexible streaming TV alternatives. And while some traditional cable TV providers have responded to this challenge by competing on price and offering their own cheaper streaming alternatives (AT&T's DirecTV Now, Dish's Sling TV), most of the cable and broadcast sector continues to double down on the very things causing this shift in the first place. Like a refusal to invest in customer service, an obsession with mindless merger mania, and seemingly endless price hikes.

Companies like Comcast have tried to stall this natural evolution by striking marketing partnerships with Netflix and including Netflix in their set top boxes, in the apparent hopes that users won't get rid of traditional cable if they're already getting Netflix as part of their monthly cable, broadband, and phone bundle. But data released this week indicates that this effort to stop cord cutting by cozying up to Netflix isn't really working, and cord cutting is accelerating at a rate notably faster than many analysts predicted:

"Even as traditional pay TV providers form partnerships with former over-the-top (OTT) rivals to retain customers, cord-cutting continues to outpace projections. According to eMarketer’s latest figures, the number of cord-cutters—adults who have ever cancelled pay TV service and continue without it—will climb 32.8% this year to 33.0 million. That’s higher than the 22.0% growth rate (27.1 million) projected in July 2017."

Comcast cozying up to Netflix isn't working because the industry continues to misread the situation. Customers are cutting the cord primarily due to the high cost of mandatory, bloated cable bundles filled with channels nobody actually watches. Comcast's solution was to include a Netflix subscription -- but only if you subscriber to Comcast's higher end TV bundles, something that certainly doesn't address the actual problem.

The report proceeds to note that users are drawn to streaming alternatives for a number of reasons, not least of which being the rise in quality original content at Netflix, Hulu and Amazon, but the lack of obnoxious, hidden surcharges and fees:

"The main factor fueling growth of on-demand streaming platforms is their original content,” eMarketer principal analyst Paul Verna said. “Consumers increasingly choose services on the strength of the programming they offer, and the platforms are stepping up with billions in spending on premium shows. Another factor driving the acceleration of cord-cutting is the availability of compelling and affordable live TV packages that are delivered via the internet without the need for installation fees or hardware."

So why aren't more cable companies competing on price? While cable companies that charge an arm and a leg for DVRs and cable boxes aren't blameless, broadcasters largely dictate programming pricing. And while that's not as big of a deal for companies like AT&T and Comcast that are broadcasters, it's an untenable situation for smaller cable ops, who already have pretty tight profit margins on pay TV due to high broadcaster rates. The same broadcasters who will, of course, be partially responsible for the steady price hikes we're also starting to see in streaming services.

But companies like Comcast refuse to compete on TV pricing for another reason: they know that a lack of competition in broadband (which is actually getting worse in many areas) means they can relentlessly jack up prices for broadband to recoup any lost revenue on the TV side of the equation. That means not only higher overall prices for broadband, but the implementation of usage caps and overage fees, unnecessary surcharges that not only make broadband more expensive, but make cutting the cord more difficult and costly as well.

from the inevitability dept

The rise of cord cutting shows no sign of slowing down. As cable providers continue to raise prices yet refuse to seriously address their dismal customer service, nasty billing fraud problems and skyrocketing prices, more users than ever are flocking to a new variety of cheaper, more flexible streaming alternatives. Some cablecos have attempted to get out ahead of this trend by offering their own competing services (AT&T's DirecTV Now, Dish Network's Sling TV), but most traditional cable providers seem intent on just doubling down on the same bad ideas that started the cord cutting trend in the first place.

The result is an obvious one. A new report indicates that more than 5.4 million cable TV subscribers are expected to cut the cord this year, resulting in a $5.5 billion loss in revenue for traditional cable TV providers like AT&T, Comcast, Charter and Verizon. That hit comes in comparison to the 4.8 million traditional pay TV subscribers lost in 2017, and the 3.8 million lost in 2016. It's all thanks to this mysterious thing known as competition:

"As the process of finding alternative paths to content gets easier and easier, people are acting on the frustrations they have with traditional providers and leaving,” the study’s lead author and cg42 managing partner Stephen Beck told MarketWatch."

Remember of course, that this is a trend that cable and broadcaster execs spent years claiming either wasn't real, or didn't matter because things would auto-correct once Millennials started procreating. That incredible denial was in turn propped up by industry metric organizations like Nielsen, which were happy to tell industry executives precisely what they wanted to hear (that this was a trend that would be easily reversible without having to oh, actually do all that much). As the report notes, that head in the sand approach isn't really paying dividends:

"Accelerating the cord-cutting trend is a lack of brand loyalty borne out of frustration, said Beck. Survey respondents were asked to rank their top frustrations by pay-TV provider. Beck found customers were most frustrated with being unable to get what they considered competitive or “reasonable” rates, new customers getting better deals than existing ones and being “nickeled and dimed” with multiple fees and charges.

Based on the survey data and information from public filings, cg42 predicts Comcast will lose 7.2% of its 21.3 million subscribers in 2018, a potential financial loss of $1.6 billion for the company. The firm also predicts AT&T’s DirecTV will lose 4.8% of their 24 million customers and a potential $1.2 billion.

These days, most executives do tend to acknowledge the trend is real (it's pretty hard to ignore at this point), but they still aren't particularly keen on actually doing anything about it. They're stuck between a rock and a hard place: denying the trend is real and refusing to compete on price will simply accelerate defections. But buckling to demand, shoring up customer service, and offering less expensive, more flexible channel bundles will hurt revenues. That said, it still makes more sense to be ahead of a trend with a quality offering in the field, than playing catching up with streaming alternatives that have slowly built a solid brand following.

A big reason for this apathy among many industry giants is they know they have an ace in the hole: their monopoly over broadband. As TV revenues sag, providers are simply turning to price hikes, usage caps and overage fees (aka, even more arbitrary and unnecessary price hikes) in order to make cutting the cord and streaming as expensive as possible. And, thanks to napping regulators, the death of net neutrality, an apathetic, cash-compromised Congress, and a lack of real broadband competition in countless markets nationwide, not much is going to be done about it.

from the sleazy-surcharges dept

As we've well discussed, the broadband and TV sector not only has some of the worst satisfaction scores in modern history. A lack of real competition has long allowed the industry to double down on all manner of bad behavior, whether that's net neutrality and privacy violations, or just unprecedentedly-awful customer service. But in recent years the industry has developed another nasty habit: billing fraud involving everything from falsely signing customers up for services they never ordered to entirely bogus fees designed to let companies falsely advertise lower rates.

T-Mobile was accused last year of signing users up for services they neither wanted nor ordered. Centurylink has similarly found itself in hot water for the same thing on a larger scale, the company now facing lawsuits in more than a dozen states for the practice. Washington State also recently sued Comcast, noting that the company not only routinely signs its customers up for a "Service Protection Plan" they never ordered, but consistently misrepresents what the plan actually does. You may or may not notice a pattern here.

Speaking only to the I-Team, two whistleblowers are convinced some Cox Communications sales reps in Northern Virginia are cashing in by signing up customers for services they didn't authorize. Why? To reach monthly bonuses of $12,000 or more.

Wilkinson, a former sales rep, claims to have notified her bosses at Cox but says nothing changed.

That last bit, where the employee informs management and nothing changes, is par for the course in such stories. In the CenturyLink example above, a whistleblower states she brought the fraudulent behavior to company leadership and was promptly fired for it. The company then launched an investigation into itself and found, miraculously, that it had done absolutely nothing wrong. Lawsuits in numerous states, however, continue.

Also a recurring theme: complaints are routinely made to the FTC but pretty rarely result in action, especially if the company in question is a larger, deeper-pocketed or politically-powerful potential litigant. That is, you'll recall, the same FTC that's supposed to protect us all from net neutrality violations in the wake of the neutering of federal net neutrality law and FCC authority over such companies by the Trump administration.

Of course ripping off customers via erroneous subscriptions to never-ordered services is just part of the problem. The TV and telecom sector also has a nasty habit of imposing all manner of bogus fees to customer bills. Fees that are completely made up and buried below the line for one misleading purpose: to falsely advertise a lower rate at the point of sale, then jack up your monthly bill once you've already had services installed. And again, you'd be pretty hard pressed to find a regulator or lawmaker from either party willing to do much about it.

On the TV side of the equation, this is likely only to result in greater cord cutting as users flock to cheaper, less dysfunctional streaming competitors. But given the rise of regulatory capture and waning competition in the broadband sector, it's a problem that's pretty clearly not going away anytime soon.

from the nothing-to-see-here dept

ESPN has long personified the cable and broadcast industry's tone deafness to cord cutting and TV market evolution. The company not only spent years downplaying the trend as something only poor people do, it sued companies that attempted to offer consumers greater flexibility in how video content was consumed. ESPN execs clearly believed cord cutting was little more than a fad that would simply stop once Millennials started procreating, and ignored surveys showing how 56% of consumers would ditch ESPN in a heartbeat if it meant saving the $8 per month subscribers pay for the channel.

As the data began to indicate the cord cutting trend was very real, insiders say ESPN was caught flat footed by the trend. Instead of adapting for the streaming era, the company spent years doubling down on bloated sports licensing deals and SportsCenter set redesigns.

These decisions ultimately came back to haunt the "worldwide leader in sports," resulting in ESPN losing 16 million subscribers over seven years (and an estimated 17,000 defecting viewers per day). As the accountability hammer began to fall, ESPN execs tried to pretend they saw this coming all along. ESPN subsequently decided the only solution was to fire hundreds of longstanding sports journalists and support personnel, but not the executives like John Skipper (since resigned) whose myopia made ESPN's problems that much worse.

This week, the Wall Street Journal offered up a report on the arguably stupid debate over whether ESPN's programming is partisan. In it was buried this little nugget indicating that the analysts ESPN paid to help prepare it for the future routinely told company leadership that cord cutting was a nothingburger that would never become a widespread issue. Even as late as 2014, when the stats were becoming very clear, analysts were telling execs they had nothing to worry about

"ESPN’s research department presented data arguing cord-cutting was unlikely to become widespread, according to attendees.

"They were flat-earthers," said one former ESPN executive.

At the same time, ESPN was spending aggressively. The company agreed to triple the fees it would pay the NBA, which it believes is growing in popularity. On the talent side, Mr. Skipper closely managed negotiations, desiring to beat back rivals like Fox Sports 1 and NBC Sports. Agents, former ESPN executives and hosts said that led him to overpay for several on-air personalities.

You'd hope that ESPN kept its receipts. Amusingly, executives could have simply read Techdirt for free and been better informed.

The irony is that ESPN hasn't fully gotten the message the cord cutting revolution is sending: give your customers what they want. While many don't watch sports at all, those that do and cut the cord simply want a standalone version of ESPN streamed for a monthly fee. And while ESPN recently unveiled a new streaming service it claims finally delivers this, we've noted how that's not actually true. ESPN's still so worried about cannibalizing the traditional cozy cable TV cash cow you still can't get a standalone ESPN streaming service without subscribing to traditional cable.

The thing many cable execs don't want to admit is this: rising programming costs and surging competition and choice means TV isn't going to be as profitable as it used to be. Companies can either cling tightly to outdated models in a misguided attempt to prevent inevitable evolution until it's too late, or they can get out ahead of the phenomenon now. There's still a large number of cable and broadcast executives under the false impression that there's a choice in the matter.

from the utterly-Comcastic dept

As we've often noted, Comcast has been shielded from the cord cutting trend somewhat thanks to its growing monopoly over broadband. As users on slow DSL lines flee telcos that are unwilling to upgrade their damn networks, they're increasingly flocking to cable operators for faster speeds. When they get there, they often bundle TV services; not necessarily because they want it, but because it's intentionally cheaper than buying broadband standalone.

And while Comcast's broadband monopoly has protected it from TV cord cutting somewhat, the rise in streaming competition has slowly eroded that advantage, and Comcast is expected to see see double its usual rate of cord cutting this year according to Wall Street analysts.

Comcast being Comcast, the company has a semi-nefarious plan B. Part of that plan is to abuse its monopoly over broadband to deploy arbitrary and unnecessary usage caps and overage fees. These restrictions are glorified rate hikes applied to non competitive markets, with the added advantage of making streaming video more expensive. It's a punishment for choosing to leave Comcast's walled garden.

But Comcast appears to have discovered another handy trick that involves using its broadband monopoly to hamstring cord cutters. Reports emerged this week that the company is upgrading the speeds of customers in Houston and parts of the Pacific Northwest, but only if they continue to subscribe to traditional cable television. The company's press release casually floats over the fact that only Comcast video customers will see these upgrades for now:

"Speed increases will vary based on the Xfinity Internet customers' current speed subscriptions. Those receiving the speed boost will benefit from an increase of 30 to 40 percent in their download speeds. Existing Xfinity Internet and X1 video customers subscribing to certain packages can expect to experience enhanced speeds this month."

As is usually the case, Comcast simply acted as if this was all just routine promotional experimentation (an argument that only works if you're unfamiliar with Comcast's other efforts to constrain emerging video competition):

"We asked Comcast a few questions, including whether it will make speed increases in other cities contingent on TV subscribership. A Comcast spokesperson didn't answer, but noted, "we test and introduce new bundles all the time." The spokesperson also said that the speed increase for Houston is the second in 2018, after one in January. The Oregon/SW Washington speed increase is apparently the first one this year."

In a healthy market with healthy regulatory oversight, either competition or adult regulatory supervision would prevent Comcast from using its broadband monopoly to constrain consumer video choices. But if you hadn't noticed, the telecom and TV sector and the current crop of regulators overseeing it aren't particularly healthy, and with the looming death of net neutrality you're going to see a whole lot more behavior like this designed to erect artificial barriers to genuine consumer choice and competition.

from the free-speech-doesn't-work-that-way dept

There are a lot of arguments to be made against subsidizing movie/TV studios. The best argument is this: the payouts to visiting studios rarely pay off for local taxpayers. Politicians love the side benefits -- rubbing elbows with producers, actors, and other studio personnel -- but there's nothing to be gained financially by paying a studio to film in your town. In one case, a city was promised 3,600 additional jobs. In reality, only 200 jobs materialized, all but 14 of those temporary construction work.

Then there's the argument against using public funding to prop up an out-of-town industry. If there are extra tax dollars around, they're better spent locally, where they'll do the most good. Subsidizing businesses is always problematic. It skews incentives and allows governments to play favorites using the public's money.

The AMC series "Preacher" has portrayed Christ in a graphic sex scene that combines blasphemy with pornography.

The August 21 episode titled, "Dirty Little Secret," showed an actor playing the role of Jesus having sex with a married woman in an extended, graphic scene with explicit vocals. The director used shadows and silhouettes to soften the two figures as they engaged in various sexual positions, but these cinematic techniques did not disguise the pornography.

We have laws governing porn which are mostly hands-off, provided producers follow several regulations. We certainly don't have blasphemy laws, thanks to a separation of church and state. But never mind the legal details. This small collective of pearl-clutchers wants legislators to pull funding solely because the imagery in this episode may have offended some members of one religion.

We respectfully request that the Administration, and the Office of Louisiana Economic Development, reject all efforts by AMC to obtain tax credits for the series "Preacher" and the episode which blasphemed Christ. We call upon the Administration and the Louisiana Office of Economic Development to flatly reject this request for a $16.2 million tax refund check.

The op-ed notes the state of Louisiana has a law prohibiting the use of public money to fund pornography. That's all well and good, but just because the writers call the images that offended them porn doesn't make them porn. To buttress this argument with talk of blasphemy only adds to the problem, ensuring that any state legislators attempting to follow through on this dubious suggestion will engage in multiple constitutional violations.

Thus, the larger truth is that there is never a good time to reward production companies that trash our Louisiana values, mock our beliefs– and dishonor Christ.

The state should definitely reject the request for a $16.2 million subsidy by AMC. If AMC is so keen on shooting scenes in Louisiana (or any other state), it should pay its own way. But it shouldn't do it for any of the reasons suggested here. It should end the subsidy program completely, rather than risk looking like it's making content-based decisions about what type of speech it's willing to fund.